- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Vernard Eugene Bivin
- Vernard Eugene Bivin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NMILITARY and WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. Having something named after you does not make for notability. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Having something named after you is evidence of notability. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can this assertion be backed up by Wikipedia policy/guidelines or proven precedent? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:N states, with the word evidence bolded,
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. |
-
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that the ship was "sponsored" by Bevin's mother, so it was not independently named in his honor.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- She was also probably involved in naming the son. That would be arguing that anyone who was named by their parents cannot have an article on Wikipedia, because the naming was not done independently. No, the argument is a straw man, because no one is claiming that the mom is an "independent" source. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that the ship was "sponsored" by Bevin's mother, so it was not independently named in his honor.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The sponsor does not name the ship, see Ceremonial ship launching. "In recent history, all U.S. Navy sponsors have been female. In addition to the ceremonial breaking of a champagne bottle on the bow, the sponsor remains in contact with the ship's crew and is involved in special events such as homecomings.". Kges1901 ( talk) 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We honor Bivin's service, but there's just not enough to be considered notable, and I'm kind of shocked this article has gone unchallenged since 2007. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no argument to delete the redirect, and there is no content policy argument to delete the edit history, there is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. There's very little if anything to hang the notability hat on. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The basic remedy for failure of notability is to merge to a suitable target. Is there a WP:IAR reason to delete this topic as a redirect? Perhaps, but it is weak, and no one here is making that argument. Why do we have six delete !votes without an argument for deletion? Unscintillating ( talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they are correct and you are not? You don't have to agree with an argument for it to be an arguement. Just a wild guess. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your nomination shows no analysis of the policy WP:ATD as per WP:BEFORE C1 and WP:BEFORE C4. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance and no RS provided. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- What is your basis for claiming that there are no RS provided? WP:INSIGNIFICANCE says that this topic is significant. Why do you say that it is not? Unscintillating ( talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is the only source I was able to find: link, from 1946 and apparently a brief directory-like listing. For an encyclopedia biography, one would expect better sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, including Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, multiple reliable sources exist, and they may be sufficiently robust to satisfy WP:GNG, but even if they don't the topic is significant as it is covered at the USS Bivin. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky -related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable for stand alone article; per WP:MEMORIAL and no RS cites for this specific man or event. Kierzek ( talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you claiming that the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is not RS? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Stevietheman. How is this person notable? He's noble, but not notable. Bearian ( talk) 22:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as apart from his career information, there's nothing at all close to convincing his independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:NPASR Given the policy WP:ATD, there is no policy-based purpose to a deletion discussion, at least not without citing WP:IAR. Secondly, WP:BEFORE D1 states, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." Easily found at the top of WP:BEFORE D1 searches are sources such as militarytimes.com and the Filson Club History Quarterly of 1946, sources that have not been analyzed in the nomination.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your obviously not familiar with the criteria for a speedy keep. Further, instead of adopting a position of authority arguement, how about taking some of these multiple sources you keep braying about and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE?
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can contact the ARS yourself if you are trying to get someone to improve the article because you nominated it for deletion. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your obviously not familiar with the criteria for a speedy keep. Further, instead of adopting a position of authority arguement, how about taking some of these multiple sources you keep braying about and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE?
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to Kges1901 for his improvements to the article. However, I still don't see a biography here. Everything we have relates to the last hours of his life. The man's undoubtedly a hero, but being a hero doesn't equate with notability. It's been a long held convention here that heroism has to rise to the extremely high level of winning a country's top military honor. The Navy named every ship in the DE class after heroes. To say that having a ship named after you equates with notability effectively changes the notability guideline for military people. That's not what we are here for. That conversation could be held, but it hasn't been. Under the guidelines we have now, GNG is not met due to 1E. Other than IAR, we have no basis to keep this. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Recipient of a single second-level award. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Vernard Eugene Bivin
- Vernard Eugene Bivin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NMILITARY and WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. Having something named after you does not make for notability. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Having something named after you is evidence of notability. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can this assertion be backed up by Wikipedia policy/guidelines or proven precedent? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:N states, with the word evidence bolded,
| This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. |
-
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that the ship was "sponsored" by Bevin's mother, so it was not independently named in his honor.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- She was also probably involved in naming the son. That would be arguing that anyone who was named by their parents cannot have an article on Wikipedia, because the naming was not done independently. No, the argument is a straw man, because no one is claiming that the mom is an "independent" source. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that the ship was "sponsored" by Bevin's mother, so it was not independently named in his honor.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The sponsor does not name the ship, see Ceremonial ship launching. "In recent history, all U.S. Navy sponsors have been female. In addition to the ceremonial breaking of a champagne bottle on the bow, the sponsor remains in contact with the ship's crew and is involved in special events such as homecomings.". Kges1901 ( talk) 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We honor Bivin's service, but there's just not enough to be considered notable, and I'm kind of shocked this article has gone unchallenged since 2007. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no argument to delete the redirect, and there is no content policy argument to delete the edit history, there is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. There's very little if anything to hang the notability hat on. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The basic remedy for failure of notability is to merge to a suitable target. Is there a WP:IAR reason to delete this topic as a redirect? Perhaps, but it is weak, and no one here is making that argument. Why do we have six delete !votes without an argument for deletion? Unscintillating ( talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they are correct and you are not? You don't have to agree with an argument for it to be an arguement. Just a wild guess. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your nomination shows no analysis of the policy WP:ATD as per WP:BEFORE C1 and WP:BEFORE C4. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance and no RS provided. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- What is your basis for claiming that there are no RS provided? WP:INSIGNIFICANCE says that this topic is significant. Why do you say that it is not? Unscintillating ( talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is the only source I was able to find: link, from 1946 and apparently a brief directory-like listing. For an encyclopedia biography, one would expect better sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, including Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, multiple reliable sources exist, and they may be sufficiently robust to satisfy WP:GNG, but even if they don't the topic is significant as it is covered at the USS Bivin. Unscintillating ( talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky -related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable for stand alone article; per WP:MEMORIAL and no RS cites for this specific man or event. Kierzek ( talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you claiming that the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is not RS? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Stevietheman. How is this person notable? He's noble, but not notable. Bearian ( talk) 22:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as apart from his career information, there's nothing at all close to convincing his independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:NPASR Given the policy WP:ATD, there is no policy-based purpose to a deletion discussion, at least not without citing WP:IAR. Secondly, WP:BEFORE D1 states, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." Easily found at the top of WP:BEFORE D1 searches are sources such as militarytimes.com and the Filson Club History Quarterly of 1946, sources that have not been analyzed in the nomination.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your obviously not familiar with the criteria for a speedy keep. Further, instead of adopting a position of authority arguement, how about taking some of these multiple sources you keep braying about and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE?
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can contact the ARS yourself if you are trying to get someone to improve the article because you nominated it for deletion. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your obviously not familiar with the criteria for a speedy keep. Further, instead of adopting a position of authority arguement, how about taking some of these multiple sources you keep braying about and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE?
John from Idegon (
talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to Kges1901 for his improvements to the article. However, I still don't see a biography here. Everything we have relates to the last hours of his life. The man's undoubtedly a hero, but being a hero doesn't equate with notability. It's been a long held convention here that heroism has to rise to the extremely high level of winning a country's top military honor. The Navy named every ship in the DE class after heroes. To say that having a ship named after you equates with notability effectively changes the notability guideline for military people. That's not what we are here for. That conversation could be held, but it hasn't been. Under the guidelines we have now, GNG is not met due to 1E. Other than IAR, we have no basis to keep this. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Recipient of a single second-level award. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.